Musings, Critiques.

[Alex Jacob]

David wrote: As is yours [unmodifiable].

No, my perspective is persistently expressed but it not unmodifiable. Indeed, it is being modified all the time. Through my reading, through processes of learning and enquiry, and through the influence of other minds.

I label you a postmodernist because you reject the possibility of knowing the truth.

This is a more involved area than it seems. I will suggest that nearly all of the members of this forum, and those who post most recently, are 'postmodernistic'. That is, if push came to shove. It is undeniable that we live in the outcomes of tumultuous processes that have led to what some call a postmodern condition, and that means all of us. I am aware of the force of those arguments that might conclude something like this:

• "How foolish it would be to suppose that one needs only to point out this origin and the misty shroud of delusion in order to destroy the world that counts for real, so-called 'reality'. We can destroy only as creators." ---Nietzsche, The Gay Science

But this offers as many possibilities as it seems to circumscribe. But you must be clear and honest: when you refer to the truth you mean the Truth you have defined, that you have cobbled together as a creative thinker. You fail to consider to what degree this is an arbitrary process. And you wind up in a territory that is a simulacra of the pre-modern! You resort to Absolutisms. And this is what many of the known religions, some of the most outrageous ones in fact, are doing now: they perform a sort of 'dance of the simulacra' while they assert some absolute platform. If to take issue with absolutist formulations is 'postmodern' in your book, I won't be able to create a defense that will convince you.

It is easy enough to explore different perspectives on things, such as Christ (thus producing many Christs), and yes, exploring different perspectives is a very valuable exercise. But that is only a part of the philosophic endeavour. If a person treats this part as though it were the whole (and thereby excludes the endeavour to uncover what is true), he automatically limits himself and his explorations lose most of their substance.

I suggest that with this---the machine-like outcome of your style of thinking---you do a sort of somersault, then a flip, but when you land on your feet is exactly in the same place: an absolutist position that declared IT knows, holds, reveals the Truth.

Actually, I really feel that it is your methods as well of course your conclusions through which you yourself 'lose substance'. I think that absolutism is a process of thinking and acting that by its very nature limits itself, cuts itself off. Your absolutism is linked with a whole range of such cuttings-off; indeed it might be said that that is the more notable characteristic of your philosophical take. So, I must take issue with you. I don't feel I am 'losing substance' but am gaining it.

On the other side, I am aware how absolutist systems of thinking and seeing become even more attractive and necessary for a wandering soul in all our modern confusion (I don't really accept the term postmodern: it is all modernity to me). In my dealings with people who have invested in absolutist thinking you see pretty quickly that it is an enormous defense against standing on their own. One also notices what the cost might be if they had to expand it or---gasp!---rebuild it on another foundation, a more inclusive foundation.

[Alex Jacob]

Bluerap wrote: Your creating and chasing ghosts here Alex. No one here has 'created' or 'possess' any absolute truths, as they are purely abstract and can only be confirmed with logic. Again, that is the whole point of this forum, something you will not grasp, because any time you see "absolute truth" you take those words to mean something imagined and made up by humans. "Absolute Truth" is not a means to an end, it is the end. It is not a catch phrase used as a weapon to confirm any positions. It means exactly what it says; truth that applicable to all, no modification needed.

Oh no, I do indeed see, understand and acknowledge all of this. But it is more accurate to say, in my view, that you are advocating for 'ghosts'. Certain pet notions you have installed in your thought processes. In very brief: you use a spurious form of 'logic' to propose your 'purely abstract'. Fine! Then all you need to do is to claim what is essentially a religious position. For if it were truly 'logical' and scientifically logical, it would be a matter discussed in scientific circles, etc. etc. But the conclusions of your 'logic' are personal, arbitrary, and as I say essentially mystical. I guess this must be a hard pill for you to swallow.

Truth that [is] applicable to all, no modification needed.

In any case, you are right in your expression and encapsulation of the very core of the system of thinking generally upheld here. I find it untenable but so would just about anyone...

[Dennis Mahar]

On the other side, I am aware how absolutist systems of thinking and seeing become even more attractive and necessary for a wandering soul in all our modern confusion (I don't really accept the term postmodern: it is all modernity to me). In my dealings with people who have invested in absolutist thinking you see pretty quickly that it is an enormous defense against standing on their own. One also notices what the cost might be if they had to expand it or---gasp!---rebuild it on another foundation, a more inclusive foundation.

You are actually arguing an absolute or implying an absolute.
Geddit?

[Russell Parr]

Dennis is right, Alex. You are describing what you believe is the absolute nature of absolutists. And yet at the same time, you are denying any validity to your analysis, because you affirm that there is no absolute basis for any observation.

You refuse to acknowledge that in your own submissions about individual perspective, you are stating something absolute about the nature of perspectives.

Again: you operate under the perspective that no perspective is absolute, while granting yourself immunity from this very rule when you come here to tell us that our perspectives are wrong.

I don't know how many times you've heard this. But I assure you, you miss the point every time. Then you go on making a mockery of yourself.

[Alex Jacob]

Yours is a fallacious and tedious line of argumentation that does not require refutation. I note a limited thinking-system and propose that such thinking brings unwholesome results. There are other possibilities. If this is 'making a mockery of myself' then have a good laugh! :-)

[Pye]

Alex writes to Pye: But with your post, the content of it, we'll have a good wallow: a wallow in the basic GF 'argument' which now, oddly, is brought forward by you: if you have a problem with our doctrines, you are that problem.

Then I have no explanation for six years tolerance on the part of these chaps, the details of whose doctrines I frequently took issue. I suspect that the tendency to cult-mind is the inability to distinguish nuances like these; and you're soaking in it, Alex. I'd be insulted, after all the spirited details I countered, if I were so inclined. Consider this a nominal pique of umbrage.

Somewhere back in all that traffic, David said something about what this place values, and I believe independent thinking, love of reason, pursuit of truth, wisdom, and value accorded same were some of the things he mentioned. That's my rebuttal to your characterization of my motives above. Pish, Alex. Just pish. And that's about as far as I'm willing to resuscitate my part in your issues with the forum itself.

[Dan Rowden]

Yours is a fallacious and tedious line of argumentation that does not require refutation.

Haha. Cop-out 101. Brass tacks really aren't your forte, are they, Alex? It's all conceptual bling with you.

[Alex Jacob]

Pye wrote: It is a "duh" realization that we can only experience reality within our own minds, hence that each mind has its own validity of perspective, materially and concretely speaking. But it is disingenuous to suggest there is nothing there to look at to begin with (the "is," i.e. the truth, the what-is) which in turn makes it disingenuous to suggest that no one could possibly have a clearer view of reality than anyone else, which is what the pathology of postmodernist thinking defends. As a result, there's no content to take seriously, but only the form, the delivery system, the medium is the message. What do you think of the truth (the what-is) of some of the things put forth by David, et al? I don't think you take any content seriously; you are more interested in the form, the delivery system - in short, you are more focused upon David himself - as personality, as 'archetype,' as a guy who seems to have had persuasive power, intellectually and spiritually speaking.

You wrote this so I assume you know what you said. But the gist of it is that you think I am a postmodern theorist and that 'the medium is the message'. This is quite a bit more 'insulting' to me (in quotations because I don't feel insulted by anything that is written on these pages) than my comment to you, delivered in the midst of good-humored ironies. You chimed in with an argument that I have heard here constantly, for years. So, I responded to that. In an up-front way. Keeping the possibility of conversation open. Providing many opportunities for that. You seem to be seriously, and I wonder if not deliberately, misrepresenting and misunderstanding me. My view? You are not really interested---or say 'concerned'---with what interests and concern me. You certainly don't have to be.

But a stronger position is to stay in the game and not have a hissy-fit.

And that's about as far as I'm willing to resuscitate my part in your issues with the forum itself.

Duly noted! But 'resuscitate my part in your issues'? What an odd phrasing! I am pretty certain that you don't understand what I am talking about anyway. That is also ok, certainly, but it does surprise me to a considerable degree.

For the record: these fellow are good fellow, and the project is a good one. They seem not to take their own 'motto' seriously enough (which I have brought up enough times as it is) and people show a great deal of this 'umbrage' you demonstrate. I have the perspective that I have. I see what I see. It is not the fucking end of the world, for christsakes!

I am not the only one who has passed through here who has taken issue with David's discourse and assetions about himself. If you come up with a platform, especially one that is established at that height, you have to be willing to see it critiqued. I am not a destructive agent to what goes on here, though I am always portrayed as such (which makes me quite suspicious), but a constructive intellect who is bringing forward ideas and observations I consider relevant. What more can I say?

Still, I hope to see you around even if it is not here in relation to my 'issues'.

;-)

PS: You made me PARANOID again. So, I read my previous post to you and there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing at all. *shrugs*

[David Quinn]

David wrote: As is yours [unmodifiable].

No, my perspective is persistently expressed but it not unmodifiable. Indeed, it is being modified all the time. Through my reading, through processes of learning and enquiry, and through the influence of other minds.

Yet it is unmodifiable when it comes to the larger issue of truth.

In other words, your mind might be modifiable in the sense that you like to hop from branch to branch, but it is resolutely unmodifiable when it comes to the deeper task of exploring the trunk and roots. Indeed, you shut out the possibilities of truth to such an extent that you don't even realize you are doing it.

I label you a postmodernist because you reject the possibility of knowing the truth.

This is a more involved area than it seems. I will suggest that nearly all of the members of this forum, and those who post most recently, are 'postmodernistic'. That is, if push came to shove. It is undeniable that we live in the outcomes of tumultuous processes that have led to what some call a postmodern condition, and that means all of us.

No, postmodernism is a specific philosophic position which asserts that truth cannot be known, that everything is contextual, that everything is subjective, etc. You have adopted this philosophic position so rigidly and so firmly that it has become unmodifiable. You are a hard-boiled, dye-in-the-wool postmodernist.

Given that millions of people these days are also firmly rooted in this philosophic position, and given that most of the books you read have probably been written by such people, it is no stretch to say that your thinking is extremely cult-like in its nature.

But clearly you are not conscious of any of this. For all your reading and exploring, you are amazingly ignorant when it comes to the workings of your own mind.

Pye nailed you perfectly.

I am aware of the force of those arguments that might conclude something like this:

• "How foolish it would be to suppose that one needs only to point out this origin and the misty shroud of delusion in order to destroy the world that counts for real, so-called 'reality'. We can destroy only as creators." ---Nietzsche, The Gay Science

But this offers as many possibilities as it seems to circumscribe. But you must be clear and honest: when you refer to the truth you mean the Truth you have defined, that you have cobbled together as a creative thinker. You fail to consider to what degree this is an arbitrary process.

This is wrong on so many levels. I refer you to my blog, Mastering Perspective. Try to read it this time with an open mind.

I also note with amusement that you cannot make up your mind how to characterize me. Sometimes you paint me as a destroyer, a reductionist, who uses acid to undermine everything. Yet here you are painting me a creative thinker who has cobbled something together. Which is it to be, Alex?

Go on, have another stab in the dark.

If to take issue with absolutist formulations is 'postmodern' in your book, I won't be able to create a defense that will convince you.

First deal with the absolutist formulations that prop up your own thinking. Take the log out of your own eye. Then you can worry about the splinter in other people's eyes.

[Jamesh]

I’m curious Alex. If we humans progress scientifically to allow many centuries of life (medically not far off it, not so though in sustainability terms), or if you end up in some form of conscious afterlife, tell me what sort of mind you would desire. After a century I’d imagine even you will have tired of human dramas and knowledge dead ends would prefer to live with a Quinnian relationship to the totality.

So what is your end game?

Edit: OK, after belatedly reading some past posts and seeing the displeasure in this term I might drop it. This thread is in relation to David's blog though, particularly Crossing the Road, so Quinnian does fit very well.

PS: It is funny how Alex is frightened for others concerning the emotion/value system death involved in the primary philosophy expressed here, yet Alex must get great satisfaction from communicating/competing with David. He'd soon give up on the ego trip of saving the graceless if what Pye put forward was not essentially true - David is no brick wall, no dry vaacum of humanity, but rather a "personality" that Alex loves communing with.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is the problem: The Gospels are utterly unreliable! You cannot refer to some 'Gospel Truth' anymore and believe that it has coherency. This is where the discipline of modern Bible hermeneutics comes to the fore. I honestly believe that Diebert has a firm grasp in this area. May I mention a few titles that are part of my recent reading (some partially, some completely): title, title, title, title, etc

Alex, the problem I experienced with all the "Bible hermeneutics" or any extensive research into conservative as well as all the modern branches of theology is that it inevitably, when studying long and honest enough, will leave one with the insight that knowing what really was meant by the teachings of the Gospels has become near to impossible just by studying all the material and their contexts. Even if one could actually get that far since it's so much material that it would take a lifetime to do it properly. And for each second hand thesis one can find there are existing one or several viable antithesis's. The deeper one digs, the less one really knows. So this is not a viable road to understanding at a personal level although it can help to provide some new perspective at times if it somehow resonates with an insight already present. But at some point the realization can come that the material might need another kind of approach - if one desires to approach it at all (there are several motives why someone would like to address the Gospels instead of ignoring them, but this post might already get too long as it is).

When looking at the Gospels from a basic theological perspective it's interesting to see the role of Jesus as re-interpreter of the classical Judaism of his time. In many ways he turned a lot of essentials upside down, attributed different meanings as opposed to the normal expert (e.g. Pharisee) interpretation, like the traditional exegesis later solidified in the Talmut. Now if Jesus already demonstrated not only a decent level of understanding of some of the traditional views but actually adds radical different meanings to the texts, then suddenly a new type of hermeneutics was introduced (one that a few cults continued - like the Gnostic groups). This was all about the possibility of direct revelation and salvation as opposed to the middle man of priesthood and some established brand of theology (this is by the way a rather standard Christian theological view on the matter, ironically enough). It's somewhat comparable with the revolution within the later church caused by translating the bible into every day languages after a thousand years of Latin only. This was the start of the main splintering of the Church since interpreting authority shifted to the masses (again).

This is why for me it's like the material begging to be reinterpreted and actualized again by someone with insight into the subject matters (existence, what else). Some of it might be twisting the original meaning, whatever that might have been, but other parts might actually reverberate the original meaning back to us. This is how I envision Jesus handling the Torah once upon a time. Authorities were utterly displeased by the concept according to the story and there were also many copycats at some stage which started the formation of the many cults the young church had to extinguish. Some academics wonder now if the stories which survived in the Church are actually the most original copies or are already serious deviations and variations of the source material.

Summarized: it's Jesus his own "unauthorized" interpretation of scripture which already invalidates any criticism of others who might be doing the same. It's the core message in the Gospels as interpreted by most Christians that it's a personal relationship to God/Reality and the complete lack of intermediate priesthood and theology which constitutes the (once) revolutionary element. Of course this is also the recipe for chaos, splintering, bizarre sects and utter confusion because one is assumed to be born-again to be able to speak with God. And when it's misunderstood what that means, all other misunderstandings will give rise to the need of authority, law and priesthood again.

[this is my new tactic - I will out-output Alex instead of putting out]

[Jamesh]

It is obvious to me that you are deeply afraid of God, deeply afraid of opening up yourself up to reality in a direct sense. It shines through in everything that you write...

I refer to 'cult-like thinking' and stand by that term. Don't now rewrite me!

To some extent David does cast out the bait - in this case an appeal for you to self-reflect about your motives, which you have interpreted as cult-like behaviour - but then all wise folk do that.

You wouldn’t be talking about the philosophical offspring of Christianity, if Jesus or whomever didn’t offer “betterment” as a lure. Note though that his bait is not to catch little human fishies for some ego to devour, but only to catch peoples interest in truths of reality, and to let them go their own way.

There would be no discussions of any merit at all if no one attempted to steer others to their perspective. Take those goddamn awful koans for instance – they are lures set by the wise to steer the less wise to thinking more holistically, whereas the Gospels tend to do the opposite with the invention of false causes such as miracles.

What you have quoted though must be taken contextually. I mean was it not a fair comment from parties who by now must have had a few hundred instances of personal discussion.

Now of course people here often only partly write for those they are responding to, so you will say such bait is likely to fall into minds that are insufficiently developed and thus could still be classified as cult-like, but again to me that would be looking at it out of context due to the very nature of the forum itself, and the total absence of any other form of cultish behaviour, as well as, IMO, making complete sense.

=================================================================================

On the postmodern issue, well I actually find achievement of enlightenment outcome in the QRS worldview appears to ultimately flip into postmodernism. The end result of the philosophy is that there is no achievable explanation for the causality or the totality. Bullshit – the entire process can be explained as a process (in the end that is all words are - descriptions of processes. Even absolute truths such as “Everything is caused” is still only a process description.

I do agree that is not possible is to physically grok by one’s senses the underlying content, as we can only ever see reality by its effects. You can call The Totality God if you are so inclined, as David often does, but due to our associations with the word, it is misleading to refer to what caused the totality as God. The true God, the totally mundane Causal God, has only one attribute, continuous self-creation, thus totally lacks the required godlike romanticisms we expect.

Grokking the base content by one’s senses isn’t all that important, like any absolute truth taken on its own, it just aids a logical construction of reality, whereas picking up the doctrine here and grokking the totality by being a floating centre of consciousness, from being unchained from the weight of attachments and from learnt delusions, such as false value systems; in better sensing, living the effect-totality - still looks like the ultimate ideal for me. (though clearly not an ideal I value highly enough to motivate me into Crossing the Road)

==================================================================

What I propose is that each of us provides specific passages from the Gospels to which we provide our own respective interpretations.

Maybe just pick one.

Alex, what was ol’ Matty getting at with this statement?

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[Alex Jacob]

Esteemed Seer David!

The issue of postmodernism in the context of this forum, these discussion, me and you and all others, is interesting. Although you seem only to seek to reapply a label to me, which in your mind will undermine my view of you and your 'project' (you ALWAYS do this and to everyone over the years who disagrees with you), you once again engage in a form of binary thinking, and this thinking can be critiqued. A definition of postmodernism from the Wiki page as a point of reference:

Postmodernism definition, Wiki: There is no consensus among scholars on the precise definition. In essence, postmodernism is based on the position that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality. Postmodernism is therefore skeptical of explanations that claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, arguing that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain or universal.

Honestly, I think that every person who writes here, and each one who is participating in this present thread, is quite likely 'postmodernist' in fact, but in any case has clear and discernible links to it. And I place you there too. The essence? That we 'creatively construct' (or have constructed for us) a view of reality based on the information available to us in our cultural setting.

In actual fact, to come to this understanding may be one of the ripples from the Darwinian revolution in thought: the notion of evolution in the construction of 'understanding'. In actual fact, we all are deeply engaged in living out and dealing with these 'ripples', and you are included here too, although I do acknowledge that you believe that you have arrived at an ancient (timeless), absolute and incontestable description of Ultimate Truth.

I get it! I hear you and I have always heard you!

Now, you know that I do not feel that what you offer as a synthesis of such an absolute truth, for all people and all times, as the end of all questioning and dialectic, is sufficient, if that is the right word. In truth, you hold up the possibility of the existence of Absolute Truth as an abstract, philosophical platform or realization, if we were to be really honest about it. You cannot yourself claim having achieved some 'absolute state', for if you could I think that you would express yourself as some sort of Universal Oracle, or perhaps like some unlimited cosmic computer with access to all Knowledge. In short some sort of omniscient Being in the form of a roll-polly unemployable Aussie. Sure, y'all see that I make jokes of this, but when you carry forward to its conclusions the platform established through the View itself, it leads into some pretty freaky areas.

It is no wonder to me that you can begin to equate yourself with so-called divine figures! But I do recognize that you do not consider Jesus a 'divine' figure, nor the Buddha, but just men who have realized the truths that you expound. But still, according to your own definitions, your realization is a realization of something essential and fundamental to our Cosmos. It is the one, basic, bottomline 'Truth', and it will therefor necessarily HAVE TO BECOME an absolute system through which the human being acts in this world. Taking it further, one imagines (as in ancient China and in Japan) an elite of 'enlightened' Seers of Truth who guide the State, develop its educational institutions, have responsibility for creating the Kingdom of the Enlightened Buddha in this plane of existence.

Now, is this 'bad' in itself? That is not really the word. For in fact we (our Occidental culture, and the very 'selves' constructed through that project), are coming out of a Mediaeval World View that mirrors the Buddhist-Orientalist vision in many ways. Five or six hundred years ago all of us would have held to a similar Absolutist view of the Cosmos, of Government by Divine Kings with established links and relationships to God Himself, and human society oriented around service...to this constructed view of reality!

Postmodernism is, in this sense, a natural and inevitable evolution in thinking! You are thoroughly engaged in it to the degree that you participate in Modernity (which may in the end be not a great deal!) I prefer to see it as Modernity itself, or perhaps hyper-modernity, but I do not see any part of this as being different from the evolution of modern concerns.

Clearly, you wish to resolve the anxiety of uncertainty by claiming a Revelation that is as old as the Cosmos itself, and your proposition cannot be anything but missionary.

The System of thinking you have cobbled together 'occurs' in an abstract zone of thinking. It is not anything like a scientific paper with a revolutionary and indeed rational new description of a Paradigm which can be passed around for peer-review. To my mind, it is a 'logic-game' played by various players who buy-in to agreements about a mental abstract, and who then 'argue' it as if it were a concrete thing! They say: "It is perfectly logical! Can't you see! You just don't understand what we see!" And so on and so forth. At a certain point though it leaves even the zone of bad-logic and leaps, with open arms, into pure mysticism. You can only 'understand' it when you have made that leap, or that choice, the choice of agreement. Also, this System of Thinking has no connectability that I can see to our concrete physical life. It is distinctly different from materialist and scientific tenets and practicalities. The ONLY demonstrable outcome of TQSPODG and those who embrace it is a vague 'enlightenment'.

It is within these 'zones' and choices in which I locate simplistic thinking, mystical wishful-thinking, a recurrence to ancient models of thinking, black and white thinking, binary thinking and all that I am summing up with definite qualifications as 'cult-like thinking'.

It is very important to state that this sort of thinking is not without consequences! And I have been saying this all along. The thinking leads to a praxis and the praxis is certain kinds of activity in the world, in relation to the self, and in relation to other pools of knowledge and understanding of Life. When you see someone, for example Dennis, who has only at his disposal a select group of ideas which he 'enforces' on reality, on all other idea-systems, on all other people, and you see him as, if you will, a 'disciple' of TQSPODQ, I believe that any observer will sound an alarm. What in the fuck is going on here?

[Alex Jacob]

Jamesh wrote: There would be no discussions of any merit at all if no one attempted to steer others to their perspective. Take those goddamn awful koans for instance – they are lures set by the wise to steer the less wise to thinking more holistically, whereas the Gospels tend to do the opposite with the invention of false causes such as miracles.

It could be argued, though, that the koan-method, included in an aggressive system of mental reform which is quite coercive, represents a breaking down of the reasoning mind, in a way similar to Chinese 'thought-reform' which is socially-engineered and deeply, intentionally coercive, and designed to force the individual to surrender.

To look at the coercive base in monastic Zen (it requires a review of the historical circumstances), and to compare the outcomes of that therapeutic method, or thought-reform method, and to compare it with 'our own' Occidental methods of mentation and the outcomes of our mentation, is what interests me here. Do we dissolve and 'destroy' our 'ego' or do we work on and improve our 'ego' to act creatively in our world? There is something to be said about two distinct methods and, as you imply, 'outcomes' (endgames).

I suggest that when we look at David's blog on "Perspectives' that we see the formulation of a doctrine that has to do, more than anything else, with 'thought-reform'. At the base of the GF System, which is indeed (now) a Quinnian doctrine (as is the content of that blog also and fairly 'Quinnian')(but I have agreed, for irrational reasons, to avoid that term though I do appreciate that you don't see it is unfair), we may discern the tenets of a Thought Reform System which is comparable to that of both classical and modern 'Zen'.

I suggest too that the impulse to succumb to a process of 'thought-reform' is not as wholesome as it is supposed. Indeed, you make this 'wholesomeness' argument in your post, and compare a koan-method (which you deplore) with the Gospel thralldom to 'miracles'. While it is true that Zen ideation, if put on the table to discuss rationally, might result in any number of different interpretations and conclusions about thinking, seeing or believing, it is wise to understand that Zen and all the forms of Buddhism in actual practice were completely submerged in 'magical' and 'miraculous' ways of seeing and being in reality. Indeed, the Taoist precursor and even the Zen anchorite at that time was seen as a hyper-potent figure; one with access to magical abilities. The point here is how ideas, practices and methods in our quest to 'understand ourselves and reality' have evolved from certain bases. One can trace these things, look at them, and make judgments.

It is possible to argue, that at the end of aggressive processes of Zen coercion through sleep dep, through the force of personality of an incontestable and absolute authority, and through the immersion in mind-bending and manipulative zennish practices, that 'satori' is, and I quote myself: 'The final, critical collapse under an accumulation of stress and conflict which is produced by intense and paradoxical pressure on the individual'. It is possible to suggest that this is, perhaps, not such a very good thing, and it is possible to suggest that it may not be a good thing for you or for me.

Therefor, 'crossing the road' may be a trip to avoid!

[Alex Jacob]

David asks: Sometimes you paint me as a destroyer, a reductionist, who uses acid to undermine everything. Yet here you are painting me a creative thinker who has cobbled something together. Which is it to be, Alex?

'Binary thinking' and 'mechanical thinking', that results from investing in an absolutist philosophical system, is in my view 'destructive'. I have explained why I think this. I don't mean that it is eating the earth and all people in it like some creature out of a swamp, but I do mean that we can do better. 'Acid' is one of the outcomes of the methods you recommend, and you use them mostly on yourself, that is to say on 'the self'. I say that this is questionable at best but then I also refer to some people who are like your 'disciples' who indeed take the use of 'Acid' to what I believe are destructive ends. But it is also true that, like any person, even the crudest theologian, that you are 'creatively' stringing things together and presenting them 'creatively' to the world at large. I will say that this is its 'good' aspect, and I certainly appreciate your creativity in this area. I take issue with certain 'cores' that operate in you, and all this I explain in some detail. Does that clear anything up for you?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

from wiki: Postmodernism is therefore skeptical of explanations that claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person.

Just some comment on the argument you are attempting to construct here although I know you rather talk with David the Man. The above means at the very least that "absolute truth" as a concept is a no-go with postmodern philosophy in any way or fashion, no matter how metaphysical or psychological it is being employed. It's a principle which according to such postmodern fashion should be doubted as well. Personally I have a different view altogether on the term postmodernism and would see it purely as reaction to (or cumulation of) modernity and not as any particular philosophical stance - although it will certainly breed a few! Just noticed you have the same view but I don't think it's a common one. And yet it would only shift the discussion to "ultimate modernist thinking" as the blocking factor.

Really even basic things like quoting Wikipedia is already subject to a fundamental correction. More proof perhaps that your form of argumentation here is not rational but emotional in nature.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote: Just some comment on the argument you are attempting to construct here although I know you rather talk with David the Man. The above means at the very least that "absolute truth" as a concept is a no-go with postmodern philosophy in any way or fashion, no matter how metaphysical or psychological it is being employed. It's a principle which according to such postmodern fashion should be doubted as well. Personally I have a different view altogether on the term postmodernism and would see it purely as reaction to (or cumulation of) modernity and not as any particular philosophical stance - although it will certainly breed a few! Just noticed you have the same view but I don't think it's a common one. And yet it would only shift the discussion to "ultimate modernist thinking" as the blocking factor.

One thing: I do not mind at all 'arguing' or discussing things with you. In fact, I enjoy it and learn from it. What I object to is you 'interposing' yourself, reinterpreting TQSPODQ according to your far more open views and methods, and then forcing me to argue against you as if you are him!

There is no real argument with David, as can be seen in the last 4-5 posts of his. But, let us leave that alone. It is not yours or my issue.

I would say, insofar as we all are and I am 'involved' in acute modernism, that I think the PM view does not know how to construct a view of 'absolute truth', valid for all, in all times, now and forever. But I do understand that Quinn and others believe they have arrived at this perspective. I must also assume that you believe you have too---or on what basis would you place all your defenses? 'Ultimate Modernist Thinking', as a play on my term and a parody of it, is accurate and also useful. I do not deny it. And you are right: it can be another block and also the ultimate block if used in this way. My interest is not in asserting that there might not be, somehow, some 'ultimate', but that I do not think it is composed of this random and arbitrary grouping on which TQSPODQ hangs its hat.

How to describe that, how to 'prove' it, or to demonstrate it or to suggest it...is what interests me. It is NOT ultimately (!) destructive to the project in se, and indeed might be quite helpful to it.

The definition from Wiki was only to put up there a 'standard definition'. I think this modern outcome is directly related to Darwinism's effects, myself. I am not trying to create some reductionist definition. I don't see a connection---or a proof of my emotionalism!---in posting a standard definition.

But I am not you! ;-)

With you, many things are possible!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What I object to is you 'interposing' yourself, reinterpreting TQSPODQ according to your far more open views and methods, and then forcing me to argue against you as if you are him! There is no real argument with David, as can be seen in the last 4-5 posts of his. But. let us leave that alone.

Fair enough. But if you want one-on-one debate with someone, then use the means offered to you (Crucible for public , PM or mail for private). If I was reinterpreting anyone the wrong way, wouldn't they disagree or correct me? What you do not like perhaps is the way I demonstrate your intellectual attempts at "opening perspectives" to be futile not only because of philophical reasons (like David is trying to explain) but I sometimes add even further reasoning to demonstrate you are not really providing those perspectives at all. That's all happening in your dream, in your own private ritual you conceived, like some others here are doing too. You're not that different.

But I do understand that Quinn and others believe they have arrived at this perspective. I must also assume that you believe you have too---or on what basis would you place all your defenses?

Would you agree that all "human beings" residing in whatever group, culture, time period, traditions, age or race are having experiences in some manner or fashion?

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote: What you do not like perhaps is the way I demonstrate your intellectual attempts to "open perspectives" to be futile not only because of philophical reasons (like David is trying to explain) but I sometimes add even further reasoning to demonstrate you are not really providing those perspectives at all. That's all happening in your dream, in your own private ritual you conceived, like some others here are doing too. You're not that different.

I don't see anything 'futile' in the conversation occurring here, now, nor the possibilities of that communication, so what you write has no meaning, nor effect, on me.

David's system is a faith-based system that occurs in an abstract space, and so what he explains is how that System works, and that is all!

I am working in the direction of arriving at perspectives and what I offer is some part of that work. I do not accept your conclusions about my offerings because I think there is an element of 'bad faith' on your part. I think you have an 'occult' investment in shooting down attempts to examine parts of a thinking system in which you too are 'invested'. And I accept this. And you do not have to accept, understand or champion my views.

As to 'private dreams and rituals', these are more of your standard accusations, and an echo of the standard group of slingings slung that are used against more in-depth examinations of the philosophical tenets operating 'here'. These crazy phrasings you pull out of the air! I like them though. I think I am working quite carefully toward an enunciation of my views and my concerns. In any case, I am happy with what I write. You most certainly don't have to be, though.

Would you agree that all "human beings" residing in whatever group, culture, time period, traditions, age or race are having experiences in some manner or fashion?

¡Si Señor! ¿Y ahora que me va a proponer? ;-) ¡Que juego mas chevere!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The definition from Wiki was only to put up there a 'standard definition'. I think this modern outcome is directly related to Darwinism's effects, myself. I am not trying to create some reductionist definition. I don't see a connection---or a proof of my emotionalism!---in posting a standard definition.

You follow that definition with the assertion that "every person who writes here, and each one who is participating in this present thread, is quite likely postmodernist in fact". So which fact is that? Perhaps the definition from Wikipedia you just quoted to counter the argument that you would be postmodern?

Then the rest of your post seems to develop the notion that postmodernism (or evolved modernism) is part of some kind of "evolution" of understanding and so I assume also expansion sof consciousness. Which seems based on the assumption modernity was part of this development as well. And yet cultural anthropology was not even the discussion. Here we see again you trying to impress with pseudo-philosophical mishmash, mixing complex cultural definitions to counter simple logical statements. It doesn't help with having a conversation! And I think I might deliver a service in pointing it out to the casual bewildered onlooker (including yourself).

[Alex Jacob]

The term is David's, not mine. I think one needs a non-idiological definition that we can all work with. I riff off of David's own ideas. This evil postmodernism, you see. You are outrageously unfair, Diebert. It is a form of childishness! If you take so much issue with the use of the word, why did you not bring it up with David?! OF COURSE you didn't nor will you ever! You are incapable of a critical utterance in relation to his views! And this is why I refer to you as the Bulldog of TQSPODQ! You will drive this conversation into the ground all in service to your aim. It is transparent (and tedious.

'Postmodernism', as defined generally and by dictionary definition, could very well represent a positive evolution insofar as it allows a whole range of critical discourses about, say, race, colonialism, philosophy and so much more.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Would you agree that all "human beings" residing in whatever group, culture, time period, traditions, age or race are having experiences in some manner or fashion?

¡Si Señor! ¿Y ahora que me va a proponer? ;-) ¡Que juego mas chevere!

The idea of "absolute truth" is strongly related to the undeniable fact of experiencing. But getting the idea is still something different than actually getting hold of it. Which means that the qualifier of something being "absolute" has nothing to do with the concept or any particular issue of life. And I really think I'm just rewording the same things which have been said by countless of people over a long span of time. It's not a "special" new theory of some kind.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you take so much issue with the use of the word, why did you not bring it up with David?! OF COURSE you didn't nor will you ever! You are incapable of a critical utterance in relation to his views! And this is why I refer to you as the Bulldog of TQSPODQ! You will drive this conversation into the ground all in service to your aim. It is transparent (and tedious).

I actually did in the past but since you are not part of that story, it cannot have been. It's not me using the term but I understand from the context what is being said. You seem to have difficultly with that and take issue with that usage. In your case I take issue with your blanc statement that modernity as well as postmodernity contains evolved, superior types of understanding. It lacks any context.

[Alex Jacob]

The idea of "absolute truth" is strongly related to the undeniable fact of experiencing. But getting the idea is still something different than actually getting hold of it. Which means that the qualifier of something being "absolute" has nothing to do with the concept or any particular issue of life. And I really think I'm just rewording the same things which have been said by countless of people over a long span of time. It's not a "special" new theory of some kind.

All of this I totally understand. It is not at all hard. And yes, there is I suppose a mystical dimension where one will 'get it' in a special way.

The 'issue' only becomes 'absolute' when it is placed in an 'absolute philosophy'. It is a 'special, new organization of certain concepts, dolled-up by new theoreticians', and this is what is being critiqued, principally.

As someone said (Oliver Goldsmith):

This same philosophy is a good horse in a stable, but an arrant jade on a journey.

[Alex Jacob]

...that modernity as well as postmodernity contains evolved, superior types of understanding. It lacks any context.

No, it lacks the content that you value. But postmodern perspectives do indeed open up the possibility of comparing established sets of belief, canons, attitudes, assumptions, and such. It certainly has a productive and 'creative' side. And that CAN become part of 'superior understanding'.